A Chechen Auto de fe

Ramzan Kadyrov has been called a lot of things. Few of them positive. But an interrogator of would-be terrorists? It has been alleged that Kadyrov has been present at the interrogation of Chechen rebels and terrorists, even going so far as amusing himself “by personally giving prisoners electric shocks or firing pistols at their feet.” But these allegations have never gone beyond anecdotal evidence. Kadyrov himself has certainly never used his participation in interrogations as PR. Until now.

It’s been a summer of death in the North Caucasus, and Kadyrov might be feeling the need to personally step in and show he’s still large and in charge. According to the NY Times,

Between June and August, 436 people have been killed, compared with 150 during the same months in 2008. And the number of attacks jumped to 452 from 265, according to statistics compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a private research group based in Washington.

But a stroke of luck came a few days ago when four suicide bombers, all under 18, were detained by Chechen police. They had three bomb belts, three AKs, a Makarov pistol and ammunition in their possession. And never to miss an opportunity, Kadyrov decided to conduct the interrogation himself for all the world to see.

“Why did you want to blow yourself up?” Mr. Kadyrov asked a detainee, holding the removed suicide bomber’s belt in his hands.

“They told me that I would go to heaven” the bomber answered.

“Who told you?”

“Arabs named Mokhdan and Yasir.”

“And why didn’t you suggest that they do it themselves? So they would go to heaven?”

“But I didn’t meet with them. I listened to them only a video,” the detainee attempted to explain.

Next, by Kadyrov’s order the father of one of the unsuccessful suicide bombers was allowed into the interrogation.

“I arranged for you to go to an petroleum institute and paid for your studies. And you disgrace me in front of the entire world [by] wanting to kill innocent people. What you yob, you listen to some Arabs but not your own father!? Am I not a Muslim to you? That I don’t pray or fast,” the old Chechen yelled at his son.

Then the old man turned to Kadyrov and said, “Ramzan, there is no forgiveness for my son. But I am guilty. I failed to watch over him.” The four youths then spilled their guts about their plot. Two were to blow themselves up at the police station in Leninskii district. The others were to blow up a mosque during Friday prayers in Shalinskii. They also said that the coordinator of the attack was a certain Gerat.

What happened to the four youths after that is unknown.

According to the Caucasian Knot, Kadyrov’s public show might not curry him the favor he desires. One resident of Grozny told the Knot, “All that abuse and dirt that the President poured on the militants, his tone and insults addressed to the detainees and their relatives do no credit to him,” she said.

Related

You Might also like

What could be so threatening about two people who run an organization for children with war trauma? Apparently something because Zarema Sadulaeva and Alik Dzhabrailov, who were kidnapped in Grozny yesterday, were found dead outside the city. Their bodies were stuffed in their car trunk with gunshots to the head and chest.

The murders could be related to their human rights work, or somehow linked to Dzhabrailov’s past as a Chechen separatist. Either way both are targets in chaos that is Chechnya.

It looks like Dmitry Medvedev is going to get a lot of practice denouncing the murder of human rights workers and journalists. This is his third time this year. Unlike his predecessor, the Medvedev wasted no time speaking out about Sadulaeva and Dzhabrailov. He swiftly called out an APB, mobilizing the state Prosecutor, MVD, and FSB to investigate kidnappings in Chechnya. Now State Prosecutor Yuri Chaika is saying that he will take the case under his “personal control” and even meet with rights groups to “discuss the situation in Chechnya.” Dima can yell “calling all cars” all he wants. Chaika can step up to the plate and drink tea and chat about Chechnya with all the human rights workers all he wants. All of these are good, positive gestures. It would be worse if they ignored all this. But such acts are PR damage control. Plain and simple.

“This doesn’t look like the recent murder of Natalia Estemirova,” Vadim Rechalov writes in Moskovskii komsomolets. The Estemirova kidnapping occurred in the morning, on her way to work. Her body was dumped outside Chechnya. Sadulaeva’s and Dzhabrilov’s kidnappers were open and bold. Rechkalov continues:

Sadulaeva and Dzhabrilov’s five killers entered their office in broad daylight. They apparently talked with their victims. According to eyewitnesses, both human rights workers got into their gray Zhiguli voluntarily. After this, the kidnappers returned to the organization’s office to take Dzhabrailov’s mobile phone and car.

What is the reason for such details like the mobile phone? And if witnesses remember a grey colored car and the regional number 95, then why don’t they remember the rest of the numbers and the model of the automobile? If they saw the dress of the kidnappers, then why didn’t they make out their ethnicity? I know [Zhiguli models] six or seven come in grey. Probably it was make “nine.” Eyewitnesses say that the kidnappers were armed. Five armed people, two in plain clothes, three in camouflage without masks, in a grey #9 from region 95 arrived at the organization’s office and put a man and a woman in a car. Moreover, two of them remained because seven can’t fit in a Zhiguli. Those who stayed behind took Dzhabrailov’s phone and his car. All of this looks like the actions of Chechen security organs. Actions of the so-called Kadyrovtsy. There is no doubt that eyewitnesses saw and remember the license plate, but its unlikely that they will name anyone. Because [if they did] such witnesses would be dealt with the next day. In Moscow, its easy to guess who committed the murder–Kadyrov or Berezovsky. But in Chechnya everyone saw and knows who kidnapped and killed who. And choose to keep quiet.

Neither [Alexandr] Bastrykin, who has taken direct regular control over the investigation of this crime, cannot uncover anything, even if he interrogates the witnesses himself. They will say nothing to him because as Bastrykin arrived today, he will leave tomorrow. And the people still have to live here.

And this is exactly why Celestine Bohlen’s editorial in the NY Times has it so, so wrong. She writes, “The Mafia in Sicily thrives on omertà; Russia, on a state level, is tolerating something similar in Chechnya. There is no reason Western leaders should stay quiet about the reign of terror gripping the region, with the Kremlin’s implicit blessing.” But omertà is being practiced among ordinary Chechens too. Rechkalov continues: “The citizens of Chechnya, as before, are caught between two fires. On one side, there is the brutal authoritarian power of Ramzan Kadyrov, and on the other banditry, and its unimportant whether its political or criminal, because as it seems, not even a strong government can do anything about it.”

Namely, if Kadyrov doesn’t get them for speaking out, then someone else surely will. I seriously doubt ordinary citizens are going to risk themselves and their families for human rights workers. We should remember, those people have to live there. Bohlen, and myself for that matter, do not.

True, one can and should point the finger at the Kremlin, and at Putin in particular. Kadyrov is his boy. But at the same time bashing the Kremlin becomes counter productive at some point. After all, Moscow is knee deep in this mess too. Every wiggle to the right or left sucks it deeper into the Chechen nightmare. Be sure, the last thing Medvedev and Co. want are more killings that bring more international attention to a situation that is increasingly deteriorating. And sure Medvedev could and probably should remove Kadyrov. I’m sure Putin would somehow find a way to save face if his progeny did. But doing that would pose the very real and difficult question: who would replace Kadyrov? Would it be worth risking a possible civil war between competing clans? Sending in Russian troops? None of these sound appealing. In fact, they sound disastrous.

The way things appear, Kadyrov doesn’t even have control. Perhaps this is why he’s been making a concerted effort to convince Akhmed Zakaev to come back to Chechnya. I’m not one for conspiracy mongering, but there might be something to these killings being an attempt to undermine Kadyrov (and by extension Moscow). Granted, Kadyrov is no saint and he’s responsible for a lot of blood. But what does he seriously have to gain from having two people who work with disabled children murdered? Very little. As for someone else? Potentially a lot.

If Kadyrov didn’t order these murders, then someone else did. Most important, the audacity in which they were executed shows that the killers don’t give to shits about what Kadyrov (or the Kremlin) thinks about them. And that makes for a real explosive situation.

Related

Chechen President and Moscow proxy Razman Kadyrov gave an interview to Kommersant. Here are a few of his choice statements.

Putin as President-for-life:

“Why can Kazakhstan have a president-for-life? Or Turkmenistan? Why can’t Russia have one too?”

“Putin gave the Chechen people a second life! Allah appointed him to his place.”
“I am not the FSB‘s or the Main Intelligence Department’s man, I am Putin’s man. His policies, his word, for me is law. We are traveling his road. Putin saved our people, he is a hero. He not only saved us, he saved Russia. How can we not bow down before him as a person? I never liked to say pretty words in front of anyone, but Putin is God’s gift, he gave us freedom.
On Putin’s successor:

“A successor is a successor, but Putin is a personality.”Kadyrov on Kadyrov:

“A cult of personality? Maybe in the good sense of the word. If I am carrying out the policy of the center, and 94-95 percent of the populace supports that policy and they hang some pictures somewhere, that doesn’t mean that it is a cult of personality. It means the right policy. If they burned the portraits and tore them up, that would be bad. But you see that, even if they hang the portrait of Putin or Kadyrov in the forest, no one will touch it. “

“I, Ramzan Akhmadovich Kadyrov, am the way I am. I cannot be any different.”

On the Opposition and Criticism:“No, I don’t see one. If there is, I welcome it. Opposition. What is that?”

“Well… I was among the people not long ago, and a woman said to me, “I used to hate you, but now I see your actions and I welcome you.”

Kadyrov in third person:

“[Malik Saidullaev] didn’t know Kadyrov’s real policy.”

“It was a historically important step when Kadyrov united the people.”

“Anyone will tell you that Kadyrov has authority, that he is respected, that he is a leader.”

Post Views: 195

Related

Last Friday the State Duma passed the first reading of a law that would alter how Russian courts prosecute terrorism cases. The law, “On the making changes to individual legislative acts of the Russian Federation on the question of combating terrorism,” essentially looks to amend five statutes in the Russian criminal code to give tougher sentences to crimes committed by “terrorists.” But the stiffing of sentences is not all. The law’s authors, Vladimir Vasilev, the chair of the Duma Committee for Security, and his deputy Mikhail Grishankov, both United Russia members, also want to change Article 30 of the criminal code to allow the removal of juries in trials that not only deal with terrorism but “hostage taking, mass disorder, rebellion, espionage, sabotage, unlawfully armed organizations, high treason, violent seizure of state power.” The main argument for the removal of juries is that “in the southern regions of Russia cases are becoming more frequent where the rendering of verdicts by juries is lenient toward defendants who have been found through investigations to be members of illegally armed groups or criminal organizations who engage in terrorist and criminal activities on Russian territory.”

The reason for the leniency, according to Vasilev is that “These are republics where up to 80 percent [of people] have kinship, tribal, and family connections and traditions which forbids testifying about or act against relatives.” In addition, an atmosphere of fear exists because “jurors and their relatives are well known to terrorists.” So either juries have relational and cultural restrictions against judging kin, are being intimidated to go soft, or there is a general sympathy for rebels in places like Ingushetia. Either way, no jury, no problem.

For good reason, human rights groups and opposition parties are up in arms about these amendments. Lev Levinson from the Institute of Human Rights told Kommersant that the power of jurors “needs to be widened not reduced.” Henry Reznik, a lawyer from the Public Chamber, referenced the circularity of history, saying that “The State Duma has done what was done in Tsarist Russia after the acquittal of Vera Zasulich.” Zasulich was acquitted by a sympathetic jury in 1878 for the attempted assassination of St. Petersburg governor General Theodor Trepov. After her acquittal, juries were removed from all trials concerning state crimes. Then as now, if juries are sympathizing with “terrorists” maybe the problem is far deeper than one that can be solved by their removal.

Duma representative Viktor Iliukhin from the Communist Party basically called the law racist because of its specific reference to the “southern regions.” He called the law “an insult to the people of these regions who are depicted as indecent and unscrupulous.” Well, yes the law does seem to be based on some pretty racist assumptions. Plus, why make a real effort to protect juries when you can just do away with them?